Search

Over the past 30 years, several reviews have examined scholarly contributions of individual researchers and institutions in the field of educational psychology (Fong et al., Educational Psychology Review 34:2379–2403, 2022; Greenbaum et al., Educational Psychology Review 28:215–223, 2016; Hsieh et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 29:333–343, 2004; Jones et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 35:11–16, 2010; Smith et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 23:173–181, 1998; Smith et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 28:422–430, 2003). However, no reviews have specifically examined scholarly impact as measured by citations since (Walberg, Current Contents 22:5–14, 1990) did so over 34 years ago. The present review focused on the period from 1988 to 2023, identifying the most cited articles and authors since Walberg's study that focused on the period from 1966–1988. Whereas most of the previous reviews have been limited in terms of brief time periods (e.g., six years) and a small set of journals (e.g., five), our scope included 12 educational psychology journals across 36 years. The most cited article (over 9000 times) by (Ryan and Deci, Contemporary Educational Psychology 25:54–67, 2000) had more than twice as many citations as the second most cited article by (Pintrich and Groot, Journal of Educational Psychology 82:33–40, 1990). Most of the top 30 most cited articles, including four of the top five, addressed the topic of motivation. With regard to highly cited authors, the top five were John Sweller, Richard E. Mayer, Fred Paas, Richard M. Ryan, and Reinhard Pekrun. Several of the 30 most cited authors have never appeared in previous lists of most productive authors. Finally, keyword and cluster analyses revealed most popular topics and collaborative networks among many of the most cited authors that may partly explain their productivity. Examining article and author impact is an important complement to productivity when considering scholarly contributions to the field of educational psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Preregistration has gained traction as one of the most promising solutions to improve the replicability of scientific effects. In this project, we compared 193 psychology studies that earned a Preregistration Challenge prize or preregistration badge to 193 related studies that were not preregistered. In contrast to our theoretical expectations and prior research, we did not find that preregistered studies had a lower proportion of positive results (Hypothesis 1), smaller effect sizes (Hypothesis 2), or fewer statistical errors (Hypothesis 3) than non-preregistered studies. Supporting our Hypotheses 4 and 5, we found that preregistered studies more often contained power analyses and typically had larger sample sizes than non-preregistered studies. Finally, concerns about the publishability and impact of preregistered studies seem unwarranted, as preregistered studies did not take longer to publish and scored better on several impact measures. Overall, our data indicate that preregistration has beneficial effects in the realm of statistical power and impact, but we did not find robust evidence that preregistration prevents p-hacking and HARKing (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What motivates academics to pursue technology and knowledge transfer has been a growing area of research with recent calls for a deeper understanding of this issue. Technology and knowledge transfer are being positioned by policymakers and universities as part of the wider research impact agenda. Against this background, the purpose of this paper is to explore at a micro level the motivational diversity among academics in pursuing research impact. Set in a business school context, our study uses self-determination theory and an interpretive approach. We focus on the main motivations to be an academic in terms of the core psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, the consequent intrinsic or extrinsic motivations for research impact, and the attitudes towards institutional measures for this practice. We identified six research impact groups, practice-oriented researchers, business seekers, instrumentalists, compliers, theoreticians, and relationship facilitators. We also found some friction between the motivations to be an academic and for research impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In general, the presence and performance of women in science have increased significantly in recent decades. However, gender-related differences persist and remain a global phenomenon. Women make a greater contribution to multidisciplinary research, which renders anti-doping research a compelling area for investigating the gendered aspects of academic research. The research design was based on the overall research aim to investigate whether gender in a specific field (ADS) has an effect on different aspects of research impact, including (1) the size of citation impact obtained by the research output, (2) the impact on the development of the knowledge base of ADS, expressed as the capacity of integrating knowledge from different research areas, and (3) the (expected) type of research impact targeting either societal or scientific developments (or both). We used a previously compiled dataset of 1341 scientific outputs. Using regression analysis, we explored the role of authors' gender in citations and the effect of authorship features on scientific impact. We employed network analysis and developed a novel indicator (LinkScore) to quantify gendered authors' knowledge integration capacity. We carried out a content analysis on a subsample of 210 outputs to explore gender differences in research goal orientation as related to gender patterns. Women's representation has been considerably extended in the domain of ADS throughout the last two decades. On average, outputs with female corresponding authors yield a higher average citation score. Regarding women's knowledge integration roles, we can infer that no substantial gender differences can be detected. Dominantly female papers were overrepresented among publications classified as aimed at scientific progress, while the share of male-authored papers was higher in publications classified as aimed at societal progress. Although no significant gender difference was observed in knowledge integration roles, in anti-doping women appear to be more interdisciplinary than men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy citations are considered as one of the important indicators of the societal impact of research. Scientometrics is a field that, among other goals, focus on contributing to science policy, so the presence of scientometric researches in policy documents become important. Accordingly, this study aims to measure the impact of scientometric researches on policy by examining the mentions of scientometric articles in policy documents. The dataset used in this study includes 5525 scientometric articles indexed in Web of Science between 2013 and 2022. The Overton database were used to collect policy citations. The results showed that out of 5525 scientometric articles, 921 articles (16.67%) were cited at least once in policy documents. Additionally, older articles were cited more frequently than recent ones in policy documents. Scientometrics Journal ranked first in terms of the number of articles being cited in policy documents, while Research Policy and Research Evaluation Journals ranked first and second, respectively, in terms of coverage, density, and intensity. Subject analysis of the cited articles in policy documents showed that articles on national/international scholar collaborations, scholar productivity/scholar performance, and funding and sponsorship were cited more frequently in policy documents. Finally, Open Access articles were cited more frequently than non-open access articles in policy documents. However, there was not significant difference between policy citations of multi-authored and sing-authored articles. Overall, policy citations of scientometric articles were fair compared to other fields, and for greater impact of this field on policy, publishing open access, and greater attention to the topics identified in this study can be helpful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prevailing attention centers on the plight of female scientists in modern academia. However, female contributions and potential remain insufficiently recognized. To unravel this veil, we leverage large-scale cross-disciplinary datasets from SciSciNet to portray female participation over the past 20 years and quantify the female effect on research using bibliometric indicators. Female ratio is utilized to gauge gender composition within teams. Through successive modeling including mixed-effect and multivariate regressions, we disentangle the intricate effects of female presence and extent of female participation on research impact and dual innovation metrics. We find a steady rise in female-inclusive teams and per-team female ratios over time, with variations across disciplines and broad categories. We demonstrate an inverted U-shaped relationship between female ratio and citation counts—gender-balanced teams typically garner peak citations, while highly-cited vertices drift toward male-skewed teams in male-majority areas. Increasing female participation yields significant gains in innovation. In the upstream of knowledge flow, as captured by novelty (z-scores), female-skewed teams tend to combine more unconventional knowledge. For the downstream, as encapsulated through disruption, female-skewed teams' innovation efforts have been recognized by follow-on citations. Notably, the female advantage in innovation becomes more evident in male-dominated fields and intensifies over time. Our study offers insights into the unique academic value and the tremendous scientific contributions of females, providing important visions for institutional and policy reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of positive words in scientific papers has exhibited a notable upwards trend over the past few decades. However, there remains a gap in our comprehensive understanding of the relationship between positive words and research impact. In this study, we conduct a multifaceted exploration of the citation advantage associated with positive words based on social cognitive theory, examining its predictability, temporal evolution, and universality across journals of varying quality grades. Drawing from a corpus encompassing 124,144 papers published in the management field between 2001 and 2020, our regression results provide compelling evidence suggesting that positive words can serve as a significant predictor of the citation counts of academic papers, supporting the citation advantage of positive words. However, it is essential to recognize that over time, the citation advantage attributed to positive words is experiencing a conspicuous decline. The universality of the above phenomenon has been further verified in the analysis of journals of different quality. Our findings prompt a discussion regarding the need to pay more attention to the overuse and misuse of positive words, as well as practical considerations for enhancing scientific communication within the academic community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The evaluation of research to allocate government funding to universities is now common across the globe. The Research Excellence Framework, introduced in the UK in 2014, marked a major change by extending assessment beyond the 'quality' of published research to include its real-world 'impact'. Impact submissions were a key determinant of the £4 billion allocated to universities following the exercise. The case studies supporting claims for impact are therefore a high stakes genre, with writers keen to make the most persuasive argument for their work. In this paper we examine 800 of these 'impact case studies' from disciplines across the academic spectrum to explore the rhetorical presentation of impact. We do this by analysing authors' use of hyperbolic and promotional language to embroider their presentations, discovering substantial hyping with a strong preference for boosting the novelty and certainty of the claims made. Chemistry and physics, the most abstract and theoretical disciplines of our selection, contained the most hyping items with fewer as we move along the hard/pure – soft/applied continuum as the real-world value of work becomes more apparent. We also show that hyping varies with the type of impact, with items targeting technological, economic and cultural areas the most prolific. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Educators and administrators in secondary and higher education in Kazakhstan have experienced significant reforms since 2010. New policies, curricula, pedagogy, assessment practices, accountability mechanisms, and legislation were implemented in an education revolution, to modernize Kazakh education and build human capital for economic prosperity. The development and use of educational research is a component of these reforms but little is known about practitioners' understanding of and engagement with educational research. This qualitative study employed individual in-depth interviews with ten educational practitioners in secondary and higher education to address the knowledge gap. The findings suggest that practitioner understandings of research remain underdeveloped. While some practitioners both consume and produce research to improve practice and institutional decision-making, issues of access to research, the challenge of time within workload and perceptions of the limited relevance of externally produced research continue to be barriers to more extensive utilization of research. Further research is being undertaken to explore this issue with policymakers and researchers. The findings may be used to improve the mobilization of research to policy and practice, especially in other post-soviet contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research funders and managers can play a critical role in supporting the translation of knowledge into action by facilitating the brokering of knowledge and partnerships. We use semi-structured interviews with a research funding agency, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), to explore (i) ways that funders can facilitate knowledge brokering, the (ii) barriers to, and (iii) enablers for, facilitating knowledge brokering, and (iv) the individual skills and attributes for research program funders and managers to be effective brokers. Based on these findings, we generate three considerations for research funders elsewhere, in particular R4D funders, seeking to build capacity for knowledge brokering: (i) formalise the process and practice, (ii) develop shared language and understanding, and (iii) build individual competencies and capabilities. Our findings complement the existing literature with a context specific analysis of how research funders can facilitate knowledge brokering, and by identifying the barriers and enablers in doing so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of open access is to allow more people to read and use research outputs. An observed association between highly cited research outputs and open access has been claimed as evidence of increased usage of the research, but this remains controversial. A higher citation count also does not necessarily imply wider usage such as citations by authors from more places. A knowledge gap exists in our understanding of who gets to use open access research outputs and where users are located. Here we address this gap by examining the association between an output's open access status and the diversity of research outputs that cite it. By analysing large-scale bibliographic data from 2010 to 2019, we found a robust association between open access and increased diversity of citation sources by institutions, countries, subregions, regions, and fields of research, across outputs with both high and medium–low citation counts. Open access through disciplinary or institutional repositories showed a stronger effect than open access via publisher platforms. This study adds a new perspective to our understanding of how citations can be used to explore the effects of open access. It also provides new evidence at global scale of the benefits of open access as a mechanism for widening the use of research and increasing the diversity of the communities that benefit from it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It may be tempting to learn about scholars using ChatGPT. To validate ChatGPT for this task a small experiment was conducted based on the 50 most cited researchers at the author's university. The results show that ChatGPT (GPT-3.5) only recognized an ad-hoc subset of the scholars with no obvious connection to the respective authors' citation attributes or internet footprint. Moreover, details about the recognized scholars were often erroneous. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using data from an original survey of 409 authors of recent articles in major public administration and policy journals, we investigate the mechanisms whereby academic public administration and policy researchers influence practice and the factors affecting their magnitude of impact through different mechanisms. Through factor analysis, we elucidate four broad "impact channels" through which such researchers influence practice: research uptake, teaching, media engagement, and expert consultation. While researcher motivation to achieve research use by practitioners is significant for most of these channels, demographic characteristics including researcher productivity, rank, career length, gender, and race are less significant. Superior university quality associates positively with achievement of impact through all channels save teaching. Results validate functional grouping of societal impact mechanisms and extend previous findings about associations between motivation, productivity, university quality, and impact of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores how well bibliometrics and altmetrics reflect research impact in relation to Boyer's Model of the Scholarship. Indices used for both types of metrics are explored and discussed while including an analysis on primary methodological works performed on each in the literature to date. As confirmatory in nature, we chose as our focus of analysis the most highly cited, solo-authored, peer-reviewed article from each of two scholars at an R1 institution in the field of higher education: a rising junior scholar and a well-established senior scholar. In addition to analysis of bibliometric and altmetrics, extensive textual analysis was conducted on the works (n = 165) of both scholars to determine how substantitive in-text citations were from authors citing these scholars' research. Different authors coded each of the citing works, and both inter-rater reliability (k < 0.001, = 0.055) and intraclass correlation tests (r =.000) were conducted at the nominal and interval levels to provide strong reliability measures of the rubric with each showing a confidence interval of 95% for coding results. In-text citations for dissertations were actually found to be more substantive than articles at a level of significance (p <.05). The vast majority of references were found to have a score of 3 or below, implying impact of the original research was not strong. In relation to Boyer's domains, inference can be made that the majority of research literature associated with citation metrics, either bibliometrics or altmetrics, do not move beyond the Scholarship of Discovery into the Scholarship of Integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently developed an article-level metric called the relative citation ratio (RCR). It improves upon prior metrics such as the h-index in that it is field-normalized, allowing for more accurate comparisons of author productivity between fields. The RCR is also a more accurate metric for evaluating early-career stage investigators. We sought to provide benchmark RCR data of academic dermatologists and examine how factors such as gender, degrees, and academic rank impact RCR scores. Academic dermatologists were indexed using the NIH iCite database. Gender, additional degrees, academic rank, total number of publications, mean RCR, and weighted RCR were collected for each dermatologist. Mean and weighted RCR scores were compared by gender, degrees, and academic rank, with P values based on multiple linear regression. 1899 dermatology faculty members were included in the analysis. Academic dermatologists had a median mean RCR of 1.12 (interquartile range/IQR 0.65–1.73) and a median weighted RCR of 18.89 (IQR 4.67–62.18). Full professorship as well as Doctor of Philosophy acquisition were associated with an increase in mean and weighted RCR scores. Male gender was associated with an increase in weighted RCR scores. Interestingly, male and female academic dermatologists along with assistant and associate professors had similar mean RCR scores. Limitations of the study include the inability to differentiate dermatologists with the same name. The iCite website also only includes PubMed-listed articles from 1995 to 2021. Overall, academic dermatologists have a median mean RCR value greater than the NIH benchmark value of 1.00, suggesting that their publications are more impactful compared to those published by the general scientific community. The benchmark data from this study may prove useful for self-evaluation and also grant, hiring, and promotional decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nowadays many countries and institutions use bibliometric assessment of journal quality in their research evaluation policies. However, bibliometric measures, such as impact factor or quartile, may provide a biased quality assessment for relatively new, regional, or non-mainstream journals, as these outlets usually do not possess a longstanding history, and may not be included into indexing databases. To reduce the information asymmetry between academic community (researchers, editors, policymakers) and journal management, we propose an alternative approach to evaluate journals quality signals using previous publication track record of authors. We explore the difference in the quality signals sent by regional journals. Traditional, journal-level, bibliometric measures are contrasted with generalised measures of authors' publishing records. We used a set of 50,477 articles and reviews in 83 regional journals in Physics and Astronomy (2014–2019) to extract and process data on 73 866 authors and their additional 329,245 publications in other Scopus-indexed journals. We found that traditional journal-level measures (such as journal quartile, CiteScore percentile, Scimago Journal Rank) tend to under-evaluate journal quality, thus contributing to an image of low-quality research venues. Author-level measures (including the share of papers in the Nature Index journals) send positive signals of journal quality and allow us to subdivide regional journals by their publishing strategies. These results suggest that research evaluation policies might consider attributing greater weight to regional journals, not only for the training purposes of doctoral students but also for gaining international visibility and impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies have investigated the use of positive/negative language in academic discourse, and have found a tendency toward using more positive language in academic writing. However, little is known about whether the features and dynamics of linguistic positivity vary across disciplines. In addition, the relationship between linguistic positivity and research impact deserves further evaluation. To address these issues, the present study investigated linguistic positivity in academic writing from a cross-disciplinary perspective. Based on a 111-million-word corpus of research article abstracts collected from the Web of Science, the study examined the diachronic trends of positive/negative language in eight academic disciplines, and explored the relationship between linguistic positivity and citation counts. The results demonstrated that the increase in linguistic positivity is a common phenomenon across the examined academic disciplines. In addition, hard disciplines showed a higher and faster-growing degree of linguistic positivity compared with soft disciplines. Last, a significant positive correlation was identified between citation counts and the degree of linguistic positivity. Reasons for the temporal dynamics and disciplinary variation of linguistic positivity were explored, and implications for the scientific community were discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientists collaborate through intricate networks, which impact the quality and scope of their research. At the same time, funding and institutional arrangements, as well as scientific and political cultures, affect the structure of collaboration networks. Since such arrangements and cultures differ across regions in the world in systematic ways, we surmise that collaboration networks and impact should also differ systematically across regions. To test this, we compare the structure of collaboration networks among prominent researchers in North America and Europe. We find that prominent researchers in Europe establish denser collaboration networks, whereas those in North America establish more decentralized networks. We also find that the impact of the publications of prominent researchers in North America is significantly higher than for those in Europe, both when they collaborate with other prominent researchers and when they do not. Although Europeans collaborate with other prominent researchers more often, which increases their impact, we also find that repeated collaboration among prominent researchers decreases the synergistic effect of collaborating. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Modern scientific work, including writing papers and submitting research grant proposals, increasingly involves researchers from different institutions. In grant collaborations, it is known that institutions involved in many collaborations tend to densely collaborate with each other, forming rich clubs. Here we investigate higher-order rich-club phenomena in networks of collaborative research grants among institutions and their associations with research impact. Using publicly available data from the National Science Foundation in the US, we construct a bipartite network of institutions and collaborative grants, which distinguishes among the collaboration with different numbers of institutions. By extending the concept and algorithms of the rich club for dyadic networks to the case of bipartite networks, we find rich clubs both in the entire bipartite network and the bipartite subnetwork induced by the collaborative grants involving a given number of institutions up to five. We also find that the collaborative grants within rich clubs tend to be more impactful in a per-dollar sense than the control. Our results highlight advantages of collaborative grants among the institutions in the rich clubs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the rise of research impact as a 'third' space (next to research and teaching) within the universities in the United Kingdom and beyond, academics are increasingly expected to not only produce research but also engage in brokering knowledge beyond academia. And yet little is known about the ways in which academics shape their practices in order to respond to these new forms of institutionalised expectations and make sense of knowledge brokering as a form of academic practice. Drawing on 51 qualitative interviews with researchers and research users involved in two large knowledge brokering initiatives in the UK, this study identifies four repertoires of co-production practices: (i) Challenge to the existing policy framework, (ii) Deliberation between diverse stakeholders, (iii) Evidence intervention producing of actionable knowledge, and (iv) Advocacy for specific evidence-based options. By exploring knowledge brokering as navigation of different knowledge production regimes – traditionally academic and policy-oriented – the paper contributes to the existing debates by providing insights into the nature of navigating science-policy interactions as a process of epistemological bricolage, requiring an assemblage of different meanings, values and practices into new repertoires of practice. Importantly, the choice of a repertoire is not limited to the individual choice of a researcher but rather, it is shaped by the broader institutional context of higher education, risking instrumental bias in which practices oriented towards practical solutions are incentivised over critical or participatory forms of engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The world is facing unprecedented challenges on a scale that has never been seen before, and the need for evidence-informed solutions has never been greater. As a result, academics, policy-makers, practitioners, and research funders are increasingly seeking to undertake or support research that achieves tangible impacts on policy and practice. However, the impact of research is inherently subjective, with the same outcome perceived as either beneficial or negative by different groups, or by the same group in different contexts. It is therefore important to consider factors that may increase the likelihood that outcomes from research are perceived as beneficial (or otherwise) by interested/affected groups and non-academic partners, to help researchers avoid causing potentially harmful impacts, despite their best intentions. In this overview article, we discuss three considerations for re-thinking how research can deliver such outcomes: (i) sensitivity to context, (ii) representation and legitimisation of diverse voices and (iii) the management of power dynamics. We then discuss how these can be enacted in research and engagement processes that are designed to incorporate multiple ways of viewing reality and knowledge, as researchers become increasingly aware of their positionality, privilege, assumptions and biases. By considering how research and impact generation processes are mediated by context, power and voice, it may be possible to envision just transformations of knowledge systems that foreground the knowledge and needs of diverse groups, including those who have been historically marginalised, and without systematically recognising or privileging one group over another. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Video communication has been rapidly increasing over the past decade, with YouTube providing a medium where users can post, discover, share, and react to videos. There has also been an increase in the number of videos citing research articles, especially since it has become relatively commonplace for academic conferences to require video submissions. However, the relationship between research articles and YouTube videos is not clear, and the purpose of the present paper is to address this issue. We created new datasets using YouTube videos and mentions of research articles on various online platforms. We found that most of the articles cited in the videos are related to medicine and biochemistry. We analyzed these datasets through statistical techniques and visualization, and built machine learning models to predict (1) whether a research article is cited in videos, (2) whether a research article cited in a video achieves a level of popularity, and (3) whether a video citing a research article becomes popular. The best models achieved F1 scores between 80% and 94%. According to our results, research articles mentioned in more tweets and news coverage have a higher chance of receiving video citations. We also found that video views are important for predicting citations and increasing research articles' popularity and public engagement with science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fifteen bibliometric research studies were published between 1979—2019 on articles published in journals focusing on higher education and student affairs. This study used the data science tool Altmetric Explorer for Institutions to answer research questions and complete article-level analyses on research impacts, subject area patterns of research topics, and sources and predictors of online attention. The data source was articles published in the Journal of College Student Development (JCSD) between 2007–2022 (N = 451) and six articles represented 67.7% of the research impact of all 451 articles. Multiple regression analyses investigated relationships between 17 online sources and attention scores for individual research articles. Seven predictors accounted for 99% of the variance in online sources and attention scores for JCSD articles. The results demonstrated the types of insights into research utilization that are possible using altmetrics; a deeper understanding of the audiences for research, dynamic developments of this attention, and new knowledge about the wide array of additional forms of research impact that are occurring beyond the limited scope of subsequent journal article citation counts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cognitive enrichment is a growing subset of environmental enrichment for captive animals. However, it has been difficult for practitioners to design, implement, and evaluate relevant and appropriate cognitive challenges. Even though pure comparative cognition researchers focus on fundamental evolutionary questions, their knowledge and expertise can also shape the future of cognitive enrichment. This paper describes the motive, means, and opportunity to do so. Taxon-specific summaries of animal cognition (including inter-individual variation in skill and effects of motivation), and experimental designs (including the task itself, training, and reward) need to be accessible to practitioners in applied settings, such as farms, zoos, and sanctuaries. Furthermore, I invite pure researchers to directly evaluate their cognitive research program as enrichment and thus bridge the disciplines of animal cognition and welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Being cited by policy documents is an important indicator for assessing the policy impact of research. The purpose of this paper was to examine the associations between an article's scientific collaborations and its citations received from policy documents. Research articles published between 2000 and 2018 in 86 journals under the category of "Information Science & Library Science" (LIS) in Journal Citation Reports 2020 were selected as the data sample (n = 40,137). The metadata of the articles was extracted from the Web of Science. The outcome variable of this study, policy citations of each article, were obtained from Overton (one of the largest policy citation databases). Standard negative binomial regression models and zero-inflated negative binomial regression models were conducted to examine the dataset. Linear regression models and six selected LIS journals were used to check the robustness of the results. The results revealed that the number of countries had significant and positive associations with policy citations (p < 0.001), the number of authors and the number of affiliations had no significant associations with policy citations, while controlling the other variables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: One of the key areas of delivery of the 'Action Plan for Health Research 2019–2029', for the Health Service Executive (HSE) in Ireland, is adding value and using data and knowledge, including health-related quality of life (HRQoL), for improved health care, service delivery and better population health and wellbeing. The development of governance, management and support framework and mechanisms will provide a structure for ensuring research is relevant to the organisation's service plan, well designed, has a clear plan for dissemination and translation of knowledge, and minimises research waste. Developing a process for the translation, dissemination and impact of research is part of the approach to improving translation of research into practice and aligning it with knowledge gaps. A project was undertaken to develop a clear, unified, universally applicable approach for the translation, dissemination, and impact of research undertaken by HSE staff and commissioned, sponsored, or hosted by the organisation. This included the development of guidance, training, and information for researchers. Methods: Through an iterative process, an interdisciplinary working group of experts in knowledge translation (KT), implementation science, quality improvement and research management, identified KT frameworks and tools to form a KT, dissemination, and impact process for the HSE. This involved a literature review, screening of 247 KT theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs), review of 18 TMFs selected as usable and applicable to the HSE, selection of 11 for further review, and final review of 6 TMFs in a consensus workshop. An anonymous online survey of HSE researchers, consisting of a mixture of multiple choice and free text questions, was undertaken to inform the development of the guidance and training. Results: A pilot of the KT process and guidance, involving HSE researchers testing its use at various stages of their research, demonstrated the need to guide researchers through planning, stakeholder engagement, and disseminating research knowledge, and provide information that could easily be understood by novice as well as more experienced researchers. A survey of all active researchers across the organisation identified their support and knowledge requirements and led to the development of accompanying guidance to support researchers in the use of the process. Researchers of all levels reported that they struggled to engage with stakeholders, including evidence users and policy makers, to optimise the impact of their research. They wanted tools that would support better engagement and maximise the value of KT. As a result of the project a range of information, guidance, and training resources have been developed. Conclusion: KT is a complex area and researchers need support to ensure they maximise the value of their research. The KT process outlined enables the distilling of a clear message, provides a process to engage with stakeholders, create a plan to incorporate local and political context, and can show a means to evaluate how much the findings are applied in practice. This is a beneficial application of KT in the field of patient reported outcomes. In implementing this work, we have reinforced the message that stakeholder engagement is crucial from the start of the research study and increases engagement in, and ownership of, the research knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a framework to understand the impact of scientific knowledge on the policy-making process, focusing on the conceptual impact. We note the continuing dissatisfaction with the quality and effects of science-policy interactions in both theory and practice. We critique the current literature's emphasis on the efforts of scientists to generate policy impact, because it neglects the role of 'user' policymaking organisations. The framework offered in the paper develops an argument about the essential role of institutional conditions of policy 'users' for scientific knowledge to achieve impact. The framework is informed by the reflexive institutionalist and the neo-institutionalist theoretical approaches. Its main contribution is in outlining the intra- and inter-organisational conditions of policymaking organisations, along with personal characteristics of individual policy officials that influence the likelihood of scientific knowledge to generate conceptual impact. We also offer an operationalisation of the framework. The wider relevance of the paper is in moving the focus from the activities of scientists and the incentive structure in scientific organisations to the policy user side. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

National governments spend significant amounts of money supporting public research. However, in an era where the international economic climate has led to budget cuts, policymakers increasingly are looking to justify the returns from public investments, including in science and innovation. The so-called 'impact agenda' which has emerged in many countries around the world is part of this response; an attempt to understand and articulate for the public what benefits arise from the research that is funded. The United Kingdom is the most progressed in implementing this agenda and in 2014 the national research assessment exercise, the Research Excellence Framework, for the first time included the assessment of research impact as a component. For the first time within a dual funding system, funding would be awarded not only on the basis of the academic quality of research, but also on the wider impacts of that research. In this paper we outline the context and approach taken by the UK government, along with some of the core challenges that exist in implementing such an exercise. We then synthesise, together for the first time, the results of the only two national evaluations of the exercise and offer reflections for future exercises both in the UK and internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Some universal accessibility practitioners have voiced that they experience a mismatch in the research focus and the need for knowledge within specialized problem domains. This study thus set out to identify the balance of research into the main areas of accessibility, the impact of this research, and how the research profile varies over time and across geographical regions. Method: All UAIS papers indexed in Scopus were analysed using bibliometric methods. The WCAG taxonomy of accessibility was used for the analysis, namely perceivable, operable, and understandable. Results: The results confirm the expectation that research into visual impairment has received more attention than papers addressing operable and understandable. Although papers focussing on understandable made up the smallest group, papers in this group attracted more citations. Funded research attracted fewer citations than research without funding. The breakdown of research efforts appears consistent over time and across different geographical regions. Researchers in Europe and North America have been active throughout the last two decades, while Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Middle East became active in during the last five years. There is also seemingly a growing trend of out-of-scope papers. Conclusions: Based on the findings, several recommendations are proposed to the UAIS editorial board. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The world's largest community of scientists disintegrated following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. With extremely scarce resources and limited academic freedom as starting points, researchers in this region have been creating new knowledge; they have been building on rich scientific traditions in selected disciplines and, at times, paving new paths in non-traditional disciplines. At present, the cumulative contribution of post-Soviet countries to global research output is only three percent, indicating that these countries are not key players on the global research scene. This study uses bibliometric methods to offer novel empirical insight into the quantity and impact of academic publications; it also looks at the quality of journals in which the output is published. The findings reveal that fifteen post-Soviet countries differ considerably in terms of how much they have prioritised research, as well as the quantity, quality, and impact of their publications. The research productivity across the region has not been high and, taken together, these countries have produced publications of considerably lower quality and lower impact when viewed in the context of global research output. At the same time, researchers from post-Soviet countries tap into international collaborative networks actively, resulting in an exceptionally large proportion of publications from this region being internationally co-authored. In the historical context of Soviet research being known as one of the least collaborative globally, this finding indicates that researchers in the region are attractive to international collaborators and may be seeking such partnerships due to relatively modest research capacity at home. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are good reasons for why academicians should care about citations to scholarly articles. An important one is that members of the academy operate essentially as independent contractors, and in such cases the quality of their work must be evaluated. In the academy, such judgments are rendered about tenure, salary, and hiring for positions above the entry level. Another is that a relatively high rate of citations to a scholar's work points toward an impressive career in academe, reflecting one's contributions to society in that part of one's career spent engaging in research endeavors. As such, it is essential that compensation in academe is geared toward incentivizing the production of impactful research. This study introduces a straightforward approach to calculate the marginal impact of an academic publication on total citations to a scholar's research portfolio. This variable is then included in an earnings equation, wherein it is expected to be positively related to a scholar's real academic pay. Using data from three separate state university systems, we find that this variable is indeed positively and significantly related to a scholar's pay, at least in the case of research-oriented higher education institutions. More specifically, we find that an increase in this variable is associated with a 2.8 to 8.9% boost in the salaries of college and university faculty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Measuring the health, economic, and cultural gains generated by scientific investments is crucial to reducing waste and improving quality of care. To date, there is no comprehensive framework for assessing the multi-faceted contributions of implementation and quality improvement sciences towards quality, cost, and patient and provider experiences in health systems. Objective: We describe the Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) Impact Framework and its application to QUERI investments. Methods: The QUERI Impact Framework adapts and expands on metrics from the National Academy of Medicine, incorporating lessons learned from QUERI initiatives. The cross-cutting impact metrics reflect QUERI's strategic methodology across five domains of impact (Alignment, Commitment, Tailoring, Informing the field, Observing healthcare changes and generating New questions/projects or ACTION). Key impact metrics, including the number of implementation facilities, number of staff trained, and number of patients served, were derived directly from health system performance plan goals. QUERI applied the Framework by conducting iterative rapid assessments of impacts for QUERI Program centers, which are implementation laboratories that support 3–7 initiatives aligned with a cross-disciplinary goal addressing a national priority. Key Results: From October 2015 to September 2019, QUERI Programs supported implementation of 49 evidence-based practices and promising innovations across 465 facilities, including 15 facilities that are experiencing quality gaps. As part of these implementation efforts, the programs worked with 71 operations partners to develop 71 tools/toolkits/manuals and support training of 5147 VA staff, serving 250,159 Veterans. Conclusions: The QUERI Impact Framework aligns multiple stakeholders at different levels of a health system around common metrics, which cross implementation science and quality improvement boundaries. The Framework supports a comprehensive assessment of the short-term and distal impacts of implementation efforts in a health system, allowing both research and operations leadership to understand the value of implementation and quality improvement investments to inform program and policy decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The so-called altmetrics—short for alternative metrics—have gained their place in the scholarly publishing landscape, especially providing article-level complementary measures. But what do they point to? A hypothesis has found its way into the recent literature: they could be an early sign of impact, conveying in advance the information carried later by citations. Here the focus is on another possible relationship, namely, the one that may exist between alternative metrics and retractions. The research question is as follows: in comparison to non-retracted, contemporary publications, are the retracted articles likely to be more (or less) viewed and commented (but also «tweeted» and «blogged») before the retraction takes place? The above relationship is tested on a set of n = 209 papers retracted by PLoS ONE and a control group including 2n = 418 contemporary, non-retracted articles featured in the same journal. Significant and positive differences in means are found concerning the mentions in peer review sites and the number of views and downloads. On the whole, by considering five alternative metrics, about one-fourth of the retractions are predicted correctly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The journal Scientometrics recently featured a study on the citation impact of video abstracts and subsequent debate on the actual scope of the same impact. As things stand, the crucial issue of that debate lies in the motivations behind the authors' choice to equip (some of) their articles with video abstracts. It can be easily understood that those motivations are hardly observable, and it is indeed agreed that observational limitations make them difficult to unravel. Nonetheless, the debate has seen the emergence of two different positions. The first may be summarized as follows: ask the authors to speak out about their motivations and rely on the elicited answers. The second bases itself on the opposite cornerstone: let the data tell the story about authors' motivations. This recalls the distinction between stated preferences and revealed preferences. Here I develop some arguments in favor of the latter approach as far as the analysis of new media's citation impact is concerned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of highly cited papers (HCPs) to assess research excellence (RE) is widespread but the emergence of alternative metrics for assessing research impact has ignited debates on their role in measuring RE. This paper undertakes an altmetrics analysis of South Africa's highly cited papers with a view to assessing the extent of online attention to these papers; the correlation between citation and altmetrics data and nuances in research fields, using conventional and altmetrics data. The Web of Science's (WoS) Incites Essential Science Indicator (ESI) database was used to extract the metrics of HCPs while the online portal altmetric.com was used to obtain the altmetrics data for each HCP. The Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine the relationship between citation data and altmetrics of the HCPs. The results indicate that clinical medicine posted the highest number of HCPs but was behind Space Science and Molecular Biology & Genetics in terms of citations per paper. Only six fields recorded more than 100 HCPs. Overall, South Africa's HCPs have the highest altmetrics presence in Dimensions followed by Mendeley, Twitter, Facebook, News Outlets and Blogs. However, each research field exhibited different patterns as far as online attention of their papers is concerned. The implications of the plausibility of using altmetrics in assessing RE in South Africa are offered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent research suggests that firms, particularly in science-based industries, may publish scientific articles in order to achieve strategic goals. This paper explores whether the reputation seen as publications in journals with high impact factors and the impact seen as citations of such scientific publications originating in firms benefit from R&D alliances with different types of partners. Our empirical analysis is based on a unique dataset in pharmaceutical cancer research. We analyze publications originating in biotechnology and pharmaceutical firms, with a comparison of the results to publications that do not involve a firm-based author. Our results indicate that the returns to the number of partners are decreasing and are negative after a turning point. More surprisingly, our results suggest that biotechnology and pharmaceutical firms should focus on establishing R&D alliances with pharmaceutical firms in order to increase the probability of publishing in journals with a high reputation. However, in terms of scientific impact, i.e., forward citations, publications originating in firms do not benefit from having access to different types of alliance partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Journal of Productivity Analysis (JPA) is a pioneering academic journal that aims to develop new methodologies for efficiency and productivity measurement and apply them into various fields. Collaboration between the contributing authors in JPA who are from various countries, institutes, and disciplines/fields makes it possible to affect the quality of articles. Drawing from bibliographic article information, this paper finds stylized facts from author and keyword networks, and the efficiency of JPA's major authors. We then examine research collaboration effects in JPA by using a research impact measurement technique. Empirical findings show that author and keyword networks changed over time, and that collaboration across various authors, institutional types and continents is positively associated with research impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of International Business Studies is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Mendeley is a social network that allows researchers worldwide to discover, search and share resources and to cooperate with peer researchers. We can recognize a large amount of exhaustive information about who reads research articles and the contexts in which research articles are read by using data about people who register in Mendeley as readers of articles. The purpose of this paper is to explore different types of users of international Egyptian academic articles indexed in Scopus across four major fields: health sciences, life sciences, physical sciences and social sciences inside and outside academia. The aim is to determine the impact and use of international Egyptian academic articles in Mendeley compared to their citation impact and to explore whether there is any correlation between Mendeley readership counts and the citation indicators for these publications. Furthermore, this study analyses readers' categories and discovers their country locations according to the data retrieved from Mendeley profiles. The data for this study are collected from the Scopus database. Webometric Analyst 2.0 is used to retrieve Mendeley readership statistics for all collected articles. This information will help in understanding how and to what extent Mendeley readership metrics are applicable in assessing the publications of Egyptian authors and in understanding the usage versus citation pattern and impact of Egyptian scientific outputs on global society. The results indicate that the majority of readers in all disciplines are Ph.D. students, master's students, and post-graduate students; however, other types of academics are also represented. The findings also indicate that the highest correlations between citations and Mendeley readership counts are found for the types of users who frequently author academic papers, except for professors in some sub-disciplines. Regarding country locations, Egyptian international publications are mostly used by users from more than 100 countries worldwide. However, the majority in every field are from the USA. Overall, this study concludes that Egyptian researchers have great international influence on global society. The study suggests that Mendeley readership may reflect usage similarly to conventional citation impacts if the data are limited to readers who are also authors, without the delay of influence measured by citation indicators. Meanwhile, Mendeley data can disclose the invisible impact of research publications, such as educational value for non-author users inside academia or the impact of research papers on practice for users outside academia. Finally, Mendeley readership statistics can reflect the distribution of users in various countries and potential readers worldwide, identify the invisible impact of the research output per country on global society, and be used as a complementary and informative tool for citation databases in explicating the influence of scientific outputs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: It is often necessary to demonstrate the impact of a research program over time both within and beyond institutions. However, it is difficult to accurately track the publications of research groups over time without significant effort. A simple, scalable, and economical way to track publications from research groups and their metrics would address this challenge. Methods: Google Scholar automatically tracks the scholarly output and citation counts of individual researchers. We created Google Scholar profiles to track the scholarly productivity of five research groups: an institutional educational research program, a division of emergency medicine, a department of emergency medicine, a national educational scholarship working group, and an international organization dedicated to online education. We added the publications of each group member to their respective group Google Scholar profile and a junior faculty member monitored the citations that were suggested. Results: Google Scholar tracked a diverse collection of five research groups over 6–36 months. In addition to having different organizational structures and purposes, the groups varied in size, consisting of 8–60 researchers, and prolificacy, with group citation counts between 1006–58,380 and group h‑indexes ranging from 19–101. Discussion: We anticipate that as this innovation becomes better known it will increasingly be adopted by traditional and non-traditional research groups to easily track their productivity and impact. Additional initiatives will be needed to standardize reporting guidelines within and between institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research impact is very important in academia. This study explored the research impact of faculty in doctoral higher education programs through the use of Hirsch's h index as measured by Google Scholar results. Characteristics of the h index in this field are discussed, and norms are offered for professors of different ranks. We also explore relationships between gender, experience, and U.S. News and World Report ranking and the index. We find that gender has no significant relationship to faculty index in this field, but faculty experience and school rankings do have a relationship. Our findings support the use of the h index in assessing research impact in the higher education field, and they may be of interest to persons beyond this field as we consider the manner in which we assess faculty research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we address the main differences of the scientific production between internal and external researcher groups of a synchrotron radiation facility. Through the construction and analysis of their co-authorship networks, we could see the structural variations in the way these two different kinds of research groups collaborate. We also evaluated the scientific impact of each group and found surprising similarities, which led us to create two hypotheses that might contribute to the comprehension of the scientific assessment of large-scale research facilities. We found that, as the review criteria the studied synchrotron adopts to select external scientific projects is very effective; the quality of the external research is at least as good as the internal. Therefore, evaluating the internal scientific output appears to be an appropriate representation of the impact of the whole laboratory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Journal of Visualized Experiments (JoVE) is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes video articles. In order to find out about the impact of video articles and how they are used in other journal articles, a random sample of 500 articles that cited at least one JoVE article was drawn and citation content analysis was conducted to find out about reasons for citation, frequency of citation mentions, location of citation and any relation between in-text citation characteristics and times cited. The results showed that JoVE articles are mostly cited for methodological reasons (72.4%) and in method sections of articles (53.2%). The context of 44.1% of citation mentions included phrases such as 'as previously described'. More than a third (38.8%) of citations to JoVE articles were self-citations. JoVE articles that were self-cited were more likely to have a larger number of citation mentions, be cited for different reasons and in different sections of citing articles. They were also more likely to have more authors. The majority of the articles (75.6%) were mentioned only once in the citing articles. The median impact factor (MIF) of the journals of citing articles was higher than MIF of any Web of Science subject category, indicating that the citing articles were mostly from journals with relatively high impact factors. Overall, JoVE articles play an important role in transparency and transfer of methodologies and processes in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Google Scholar (GS) has progressively emerged as a tool which “provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly literature across many disciplines and sources.” As a free tool that provides citation metrics, GS has opened the academic word to a much larger audience, according to an open information philosophy. GS’ profiles are largely used not only to have a quick look at the authors and their works but, more and more often, as a “de facto” metric to quickly evaluate the research impact. This process looks unstoppable and discussing about its fairness, advantages and disadvantages, as well as about social implications is out of the scope of this paper. We rather prefer to (1) briefly discuss the changes and the innovation that GS has introduced and to (2) propose possible improvements for analysis on academic citations. Our methods are aimed at considering a GS profile in its proper context, providing a social perspective on academic citations: Although maintaining a fundamentally quantitative focus, novel approaches, based on complex network analysis, distinguish between a research impact on the authors’ research network and a more general impact on the scientific community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The appeal of metric evaluation of research impact has attracted considerable interest in recent times. Although the public at large and administrative bodies are much interested in the idea, scientists and other researchers are much more cautious, insisting that metrics are but an auxiliary instrument to the qualitative peer-based judgement. The goal of this article is to propose availing of such a well positioned construct as domain taxonomy as a tool for directly assessing the scope and quality of research. We first show how taxonomies can be used to analyze the scope and perspectives of a set of research projects or papers. Then we proceed to define a research team or researcher’s rank by those nodes in the hierarchy that have been created or significantly transformed by the results of the researcher. An experimental test of the approach in the data analysis domain is described. Although the concept of taxonomy seems rather simplistic to describe all the richness of a research domain, its changes and use can be made transparent and subject to open discussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the data from the Scopus publication database, as analyzed in several recent studies, more than 70,000 papers have been published in the area of Software Engineering (SE) since late 1960's. According to our recent work, 43% of those papers have received no citations at all. Since citations are the most commonly used metric for measuring research (academic) impact, these figures raise questions (doubts) about the (non-existing) impact of such a large set of papers. It is a reality that typical academic reward systems encourage researchers to publish more papers and do not place a major emphasis on research impact. To shed light on the issue of volume (quantity) versus citation-based impact of SE research papers, we conduct and report in this paper a quantitative bibliometrics assessment in four aspects: (1) quantity versus impact of different paper types (e.g., conference versus journal papers), (2) ratios of uncited (non-impactful) papers, (3) quantity versus impact of papers originating from different countries, and (4) quantity versus impact of papers by each of the top-10 authors (in terms of number of papers). To achieve the above objective, we conducted a quantitative exploratory bibliometrics assessment, comprised of four research questions, to assess quantity versus impact of SE papers with respect to the aspects discussed above. We extracted the data through a systematic, automated and repeatable process from the Scopus paper database, which we also used in two previous papers. Our results show that the distribution of SE publications has a major inequality in terms of impact overall, and also when categorized in terms of the above four aspects. The situation in the SE literature is similar to the other areas of science as studied by previous bibliometrics studies. Also, among our results is the fact that journal articles and conference papers have been cited 12.6 and 3.6 times on average, confirming the expectation that journal articles have more impact, in general, than conference papers. Also, papers originated from English-speaking countries have in general more visibility and impact (and consequently citations) when compared to papers originated from non-English-speaking countries. Our results have implications for improvement of academic reward systems, which nowadays mainly encourage researchers to publish more papers and usually neglect research impact. Also, our results can help researchers in non-English-speaking countries to consider improvements to increase their research impact of their upcoming papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When the meaning of key terms is incompatible in competing taxonomies, a revolution might occur in the field by which the established taxonomy is replaced with another. Since the key term 'impact' in scientometrics seems to undergo a taxonomic change, a revolution might be taking place at present: Impact is no longer defined as impact on science alone (measured by citations), but on all sectors of society (e.g. economics, culture, or politics). In this Short Communication, we outline that the current revolution in scientometrics does not only imply a broadening of the impact perspective, but also the devaluation of quality considerations in evaluative contexts. Impact might no longer be seen as a proxy for quality, but in its original sense: the simple resonance in some sectors of society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much academic research is never cited and may be rarely read, indicating wasted effort from the authors, referees and publishers. One reason that an article could be ignored is that its topic is, or appears to be, too obscure to be of wide interest, even if excellent scholarship produced it. This paper reports a word frequency analysis of 874,411 English article titles from 18 different Scopus natural, formal, life and health sciences categories 2009-2015 to assess the likelihood that research on obscure (rarely researched) topics is less cited. In all categories examined, unusual words in article titles associate with below average citation impact research. Thus, researchers considering obscure topics may wish to reconsider, generalise their study, or to choose a title that reflects the wider lessons that can be drawn. Authors should also consider including multiple concepts and purposes within their titles in order to attract a wider audience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increased financial and human resource constraints for research and development (R&D) imply rigorous research evaluation to guide the research policy for wise allocation of resources. In this study, we developed a conceptual framework called the “Institutional Research Evaluation Model” (IREM) to evaluate the quality of research and its determinants. The IREM was then applied to a medical institution to study its applicability in Saudi Arabia. The IREM consists of five levels: duration decision; choice of research quality indicators [impact factor (IF), article influence scores (AIS), citations per paper (CPP), and publication in indexed journal]; trend indicators (numbers of publications, study design, subject); data extraction; and statistical techniques to determine the factors affecting impact of research. Application of the IREM to the College of Medicine, King Saud University (CMKSU) for research evaluation from 2003 to 2013 revealed that during this duration, 1722 studies were published, the highest in 2013 ( n = 314) and 85.5% ( n = 1472) in indexed journals ( p < 0.001). The mean IF was 2.6, mean AIS 1.16, and mean CPP 10.06. IF was positively associated with duration, indexation, CPP, and subject being human genetics at multivariable linear regression. The IREM is an applicable basic tool for institutional research evaluation which can guide the research policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]